REF-1768 · Álvarez-Martínez & Borden, 2025 · Lasers in Medical Science, · Paper · PubMed

Whole-body red and near-infrared light (photobiomodulation) applied before or after exercise brought no reported benefit for exercise performance or fatigue biomarkers in any of the 5 studies (105 physically active people) found by a systematic review without meta-analysis; 2 studies reported better sleep quality (a questionnaire, a commercial sleep tracker, higher serum melatonin, lower night-time heart rate)

Main caveat: Only 5 studies with 105 participants in total, summarised in words; no pooled estimate, effect sizes or intervals.
moderate evidenceMeasured on recreational to trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Álvarez-Martínez and Borden asked whether photobiomodulation delivered to the whole body improves exercise performance or recovery, and how this compares with the effects reported for PBM applied to a local patch of skin. They describe PBM as irradiating the skin with red and near-infrared lasers or LEDs.

They searched four databases for human studies of whole-body red or near-infrared PBM given before or after exercise, checked 193 records and included 5 studies with 105 physically active participants of both sexes doing different kinds of exercise, and summarised them in words without pooling.

Two studies reported better sleep quality, measured by a subjective questionnaire and by a commercial sleep tracker, with higher serum melatonin and a lower heart rate at night in the PBM condition. None of the five reported a benefit for biomarkers of fatigue or for exercise performance.

The authors conclude that whole-body PBM may improve sleep but shows no evidence of benefit for exercise recovery or performance, and that the gap with localized PBM studies needs further research.

Participants

5 studies, 105 participants in total; physically active, both sexes, different exercise modalities.
Not in the abstract: ages, sex split, sports, training or competition level, and the size of each study.

Protocol

Search: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO and Google Scholar; terms (whole-body OR full-body) AND (photobiomodulation OR "light therapy"); search dates not in the abstract.
Inclusion: human participants; whole-body PBM in the red or near-infrared spectrum; applied before or after exercise to improve performance or recovery.
What was applied: whole-body red or near-infrared light, before or after exercise. The device type (bed, pod, panel), wavelengths, irradiance, dose, session length, the number of sessions and what the comparison or sham was are not in the abstract.
Outcomes reported: sleep quality (questionnaire, commercial sleep tracker, serum melatonin, nocturnal heart rate), biomarkers of fatigue, exercise performance.
Analysis: qualitative synthesis; no meta-analysis. Study designs and any risk-of-bias or certainty assessment are not in the abstract.

Key Results

OutcomeStudiesFinding
Exercise performancenone of the 5 reported a benefitno benefit reported (how many measured it not given)
Biomarkers of fatiguenone of the 5 reported a benefitno benefit reported (how many measured it not given)
Sleep quality (subjective questionnaire; commercial sleep tracker)2better with whole-body PBM
Serum melatoninwithin the 2 sleep studieshigher with whole-body PBM
Nocturnal heart ratewithin the 2 sleep studieslower with whole-body PBM
The abstract gives no effect sizes, intervals or P values, and does not say which performance tests or fatigue biomarkers were used. Consistency: none of the five reported a performance or fatigue-marker benefit (the abstract does not say how many measured each); only two reported on sleep.

Practical Application

None of the 5 studies of whole-body red or near-infrared light this review found (105 active people) reported a benefit for exercise performance or fatigue markers; no performance or recovery benefit has been shown for it. Two studies reported better sleep, but the review pooled nothing and the abstract gives no sizes.
To "should I use a red-light bed or panel after training?": say the base has a systematic review of whole-body light in which none of 5 studies reported a performance or fatigue-marker benefit, and two studies reported better sleep; recovery in the base rests on food, sleep and easy days first (SYNTH-70, SYNTH-07).Comfort or relaxation is a personal choice, not a training decision (the base's practice; SYNTH-83's row on red and near-infrared light says the same and reports this review's whole-body result).
The sleep finding rests on 2 studies with a questionnaire, a consumer tracker, melatonin and night heart rate; melatonin and heart rate are markers (PHYS-44). Inference, not tested here: it is a reason to watch one's own sleep data, not a reason to buy a device.
This review is about the whole body. Light aimed at one muscle with a laser or LED cluster ("localized PBM") is a different application with its own trials; the authors note that localized studies report benefits this review did not find, and this entry does not grade them.

Limitations

Only 5 studies with 105 participants in total, summarised in words; no pooled estimate, effect sizes or intervals.
The designs of the included studies, whether they used a sham, and any risk-of-bias assessment are not in the abstract.
The light applied (device, wavelengths, dose, number of sessions) and the performance tests and fatigue biomarkers used are not in the abstract, so a null may reflect doses or tests that differ between studies.
The sleep result comes from 2 studies, partly from a consumer tracker and markers (melatonin, night heart rate).
Funding and conflicts of interest are not in the abstract.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a systematic review, risk of bias not read (abstract only), so capped at B+; the abstract does not say whether the 5 included studies were controlled trials